The technology merger aspect of this deal--presumably why Oracle is paying $7.4 billion--seems more harmonious. Many of Oracle's database customers run on Sun, and most of any hardware company's vendors run on Oracle.

The two companies have been long-time marketing partners, there are oodles of ways the two companies are touting their Java synergy, and this merger seems to create a nice overall platform that should not raise anti-trust hackles in the way an IBM/Sun might have.

Oracle will presumably not croak open-source competitor MySql (now owned by Sun), but use it to hook and reel in new generations of smaller businesses. Sun also is a significant player in the storage arena through its StorageTek acquisition of a few years back.

But, getting to the point the headline of this article makes, is this merger too harmonious? Will it simply represent more vendor lock-in?

Sun has been aggressive in promoting its Cloud Computing strategy, yes...but is vendor lock-in to a major Cloud provider fundamentally different from vendor lock-in to today's IT customers?

Capitalism does not reward that nice spirit of sharing that we all teach our kids when they're fighting for toys in the sandbox. And Ellison seems hell-bent on turning his observation--that Silicon Valley would start to look like Detroit in a few years by dint of massive consolidation--into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Cloud Computing promises new waves of innovation by IT visionaries who will be less encumbered by the same old same old, having delivered enormous cost savings by outsourcing the drudgery to Google or Yahoo or whomever.

Will this promise be broken when, encumbered by precious little vendor choice, cloud provisioners establish pricepoints that simply return IT departments back to the budget jams of old?